What Explains Racial, Gender, and Other Group-Based Gaps?

The "Gap=Discrimination" Assumption Critically Evaluated

Gaps are everywhere. Women earn about 75-80% of men. On intelligence and standardized achievement tests, Asian Americans score higher than Whites, who score higher than Latinos, who score higher than Blacks.

Girls receive higher grades at every level of schooling, from elementary school through graduate school, than do boys. Girls even receive higher grades than do boys in science courses. Girls receive high school and college degrees at higher rates than do boys. Boys receive diagnostic labels (learning disabled, ADHD, and so on.) at higher rates than do girls.

Jews and Asians earn higher income than most other American groups; African Americans and Latinos less. Whites live longer than African Americans. Rich people live longer than poor people.

Nearly all recipients of Nobel Prizes in the various scientific fields are White men. Nearly all heads of Fortune 500 companies are White men. Sheryl Sandberg had to promote "leaning in," in part, because so few women have leadership positions in the tech industry. Young African American men are shot and killed by police proportionally far more than young men of any other group.

And academia is mostly a club for liberals. About 80-90% or more of the faculty at many colleges and universities are left of center. The split is even more extreme in many social science and humanities departments. I suspect that, at many, there are more leftist radicals and Marxists than there are conventional American conservatives.

Gaps. Are. Everywhere.

Source: Lee Jussim

Where do these gaps come from? The selective go-to explanation in the social sciences is discrimination. It is selective, because it is typically only applied when the group is one the left deems both oppressed and protected in some way (racial and ethnic minorities, women, LGBT, and so on). There is some, but not much, scholarship on why schools so consistently disadvantage boys, though understanding the gender gap in science fields is a hot topic.

However, for those groups the left does care about, even leftist academics who one might think should know better equate gap=discrimination.

And, in fact, sometimes gaps do result from discrimination. In rare cases, they may result exclusively from ongoing discrimination in the present. In many cases, they probably result in part from such discrimination. They rarely, however, result exclusively from ongoing discrimination in the present.

Welcome to my new blog series on gaps. Because gaps are often complex, simplistic, single-cause explanations, such as "discrimination," are rarely justified. I will be exploring specific gaps—racial, gender, political and more—and reviewing how social science evidence can and should influence our understanding of those gaps. I will be critically evaluating the "all discrimination all the time" explanations for gaps advanced in many academic circles. I will be identifying a slew of explanations, other than discrimination, that can be a source of some or most or even all of many gaps.

I will also, as a part of this series, be pointing out forms of discrimination against high status groups that the left, including leftist academics, routinely ignore. These are important because, in their very different way, they undermine the "gap=discrimination" assumption.

There is, for example, ample evidence of prejudice against Asian Americans and Jews, which receives little attention in social science research, because of an attitude among academics that only prejudice against lower status groups matters (never mind that genocide and mass murder have often been committed against successful minority groups—Jews, Armenians, Tutsis, Kurds, Kulaks, and the teachers/professionals/intellectuals in China [during the Cultural Revolution], and Cambodia [during the Khmer Rouge's reign of terror]).

This series will also examine proposed "solutions" for gaps. Diversity programs, affirmative action, and so forth. Such programs typically aspire to provide remedies to discrimination, though sometimes they have other goals. If discrimination is the problem, they may or may not be effective. If they target discrimination, and discrimination is not the main source of some gap, they are highly unlikely to be effective (like attempting to cure cancer with antibiotics).

Gaps do not always result from discrimination. And discrimination, even when it occurs, does not always result in a gap disadvantaging the discriminated group.

For the next blog in this series, consider the following question: If a university admitted 70% of the men who applied, and only 30% of the women who applied, and the men and women were exactly equally qualified, would that be conclusive evidence that that university was engaging in sex discrimination?

Yours is a valiant quest: for the truth, but I suspect that normal human behavior will result in a hopeless deluge of condemnation that will obscure any point you are trying to make. Do you remember the response to The Bell Curve? The proper response there was to return to the statistics and respond to any criticism with research and fact, but few were interested in fact, most accepted the general consensus and the book was tossed in to the trash heap of bigoted, racist rantings.

Hello Lee
I'm excited by your proposed latest series of posts.
Of the many bloggers on PT, you are one of the few whom I really admire both because of your academic rigor and because of your courage to challenge many entrenched dogmas. You have always delighted me in your challenges of 'stereotyping', incisively arguing that it goes far beyond the politically incorrect. You dare to talk of heuristics with no regard for the indignancies of the blinkered.
And that you dare to talk of gaps! That is beyond the pale actually despite your qualifying them as 'some' gaps and gaps resulting from X.
I am feeling faint actually. You are to blame for your lack of a trigger warning at the head of your post.
To answer your question as you have posed it, there is prima facie evidence of sex discrimination against women. 70% of men are accepted and only 30% of women.
However, you have not mentioned 2 critical factors.
Firstly, what is the base rate of the numbers of men who apply and of women who apply?
Secondly, what is the university's policy on affirmative action?
Thus there may be far higher numbers of women who apply compared to numbers of men who apply and if the university wished to have equal representation of women and men in the student population, they may have to discriminate to achieve this.
In addition, there may be pure and simple discrimination to favor male admissions - period.
There is yet another way to look at the admissions in terms of discrimination but it is arcane and would take too much time to argue.
Finally, you have not adequately defined sex-discrimination in order to fully canvas your very interesting question.
I look forward to your posts (with trigger warnings please).

Assume 1000 men and 1000 women apply. For now, I am going to pass on responding to your affirmative action question though I fully recognize that the issues surrounding affirmative action do need to be tackled at some point.. Please stay tuned...

Great question. And I am embarrassed to say I do not know. But I will contact the Psych Today Gurus and ask... If you do not hear back, say, by Friday, feel free to post again (I get notifications whenever there is a new post).

Facebook doesn't show pages posts to most followers. I suggest you use something like this https://blogtrottr.com/
You get the rss feed link from any blog and it send you an email every time there's a new post.

Hhhmmm.
Since affirmative action doesn't come in, I have come up with 2 further reasons to explain this disparity.
First.
Depends on the college since private college admissions are exempt from Title IX’s ban on sex discrimination and therefore the disparate acceptances are not discriminatory.
Second.
Another reason which could explain the apparent discrimination against women turns on the popularity of the courses for which each group applies (and I suspect that this is what you might be alluding to).
Thus if men applied to less competitive faculties such as science and engineering, their rates of acceptance would be high given the relative paucity of applications versus places available.
and if women predominantly applied for more competitive faculties such as social sciences or arts where there were many more applications than places, fewer would be accepted into these faculties.
This of courses raises an allied but different problem of explaining why so few women are represented in STEM studies compared to men. It is this problem which I would love to see you tackle.

You are (mostly) wrong about your Title IX analysis, because even most private schools accept federal funding, which puts them under Title IX. I mean, it might not be literally wrong because, of course, I could have chosen a highly unusual, arcane example of a school that took no such funding. But, even then, it might not be illegal, but could still be discrimination -- and, even by my standards, would be if ALL other aspects of the applicants were equal (and by equal, I mean equal means and distributions, not even necessarily exactly equal).

It would have been an unfair trick question to choose an arcane school situation or require some bizarre distribution. However, in the real world, one explanation for why there are more men in STEM is that the distribution of adolescent math/science achievement scores is wider for boys than girls (similar mean, larger distribution for men). That means there are more boys than girls at both the upper and lower end of the distribution. If there are more boys at the upper end, and if scientific careers in STEM require upper end achievement -- then, voila, you get a gender gap.

As Len Spector above has amusingly alluded to (see his "Trumpian tripe" comment), this point was what got Larry Summers in trouble at Harvard.

Still, this is too tricky and technical for me to have asked it as a general question.

The hint as to what is right here is in what is left unsaid about your comment above.

The more attempts to fight nature, the more failiures society reaps. Creating distortions creates cycles of discontent and thus every factor that is perceived to factor change is simply the result of it. Yet everyone wants to re-distribute things the way they want to because their vision of how things should be is in clash with how things are, nobody attempts to understand why but everyone wants to go after the results they deem unsatisfactory.
www.lushfun.com

It's been too long since you've written an article. I still refer colleagues to your work on liberal bias and at the very least it causes people to stop and think. It's even changed some minds.

I look forward to this series. This particular topic is one that many feel is the most pressing issue we have today. In the past it was religion, we had people like Dawkins, Hitchcock, John Cleese, and Stephen Fry all railing against it's oppressive qualities. Now it is identity politics, and those same figures, where sill alive (we miss you Hitch) have turned their attention to political correctness, and victim culture.

Hey James, thanks for that. It will probably make my day (it is early, so you never know...). It is quite uplifting to hear that your sense is some of this is actually changing some people's minds...

On my blogs! This is my third in the last three weeks! (ok, I did have about a 2 month hiatus -- got really busy at work). The earliest was on social psychology (not politics); and the second was on what I see as campus wide threats to free speech (politics, but only touching on psychology).

Here's hoping you just didn't count those, rather than missed them completely!

I did manage to miss those! 3 articles in one day, and it's not even Easter yet.

I'm guessing you're own University has become the centre of attention so far as campus free speech is concerned. Ha there been a shift in attitudes there or not? I've witnessed changes in Universities in the UK due to events at the Rutgers campus. Common sense seems to be prevailing.

Assuming they are equally qualified, yes, that would be evidence of discrimination.

I look forward to seeing the rest of your posts on this topic. Your voice of reason and evidence-based discussion on social issues is sorely needed in this world right now. Can your book be required reading for every college student? In my ideal world YES!

Not necessarily sex discrimination. Could be discrimination based on some other factor (for example, the women may be disproportionately Asian and the discrimination might be against Asians, not women). Need to adjust for confounding variables.

All else equal, it would be strongly suggestive of discrimination in university admissions. Here are some cases where it wouldn't be suggestive of discrimination by university admissions, all else NOT equal:

1. Differences in *where* men and women are applying. If women are applying to graduate programs that are more selective (e.g., PhDs in clinical psychology) and men are applying to graduate programs that are less selective (e.g., MBA), then you may see disproportionate acceptance rates at the aggregate level but not at the department level.

2. Small samples. If it's a small university that only accepts in small numbers, then it's more likely to have had happened just by chance.

3. Differences in *who* is applying. Example: If the university's advertising and recruiting efforts are disproportionately targeting high-performance schools w/ high proportions of boys/men (e.g., private boy's academies), then the pool of applicants would contain more qualified men than women.

OK.
Could be that while male and female applicants were equally qualified based on performance prior to entering the university, males performed better (on average) while there. Knowing this, the admissions committee might favor male applicants.
For university level STEM courses, a disparity between male and female performance might exist even though no such disparity existed among applicants' high school performance
Whether this still represents "discrimination" is up for debate.

"For the next blog in this series, consider the following question: If a university admitted 70% of the men who applied, and only 30% of the women who applied, and the men and women were exactly equally qualified, would that be conclusive evidence that that university was engaging in sex discrimination?"

As my subject-line alludes to, the loaded term is "conclusive." There are, as I presume is your whole point, a number of potential things that could change the analysis. But it *is* strongly suggestive that discrimination is a factor, and likely (though also not guaranteed) to be a primary factor.

You mentioned elsewhere that we can assume 1000 of each, and that they are equally-well qualified. You also mentioned that the relevant demographics are equal between the groups. The proper analysis would then seek dis-confirming (or at least limiting) theories for the allegation sex discrimination, and then analyze their probability. Here's some that I came up with:

* Lottery: 70-30 split is perfectly within the possibility of a lottery-based admissions policy (for this sake, I'm assuming the lottery is based on those who meet sufficient criterion, but simply that there's not enough seats for everyone).

* Other forms of AA: Though I can't think of any, it's conceivable to have an unrelated AA policy that, inadvertently, enforced a sex-differential.

* Alternative criterion: On matters unrelated to qualifications on which you labeled them "equally qualified," some private universities might have a policy that impacts. For example, you wouldn't expect Liberty U to accept many atheists.

* Chosen discipline (the most common I've seen others mention): If members of one group disproportionately prefer a certain major that is limited in its offerings/availability, that can limit the number of applicants to the university as a whole from that group.

* Sports (had to, for completeness): The school could be one known well for certain sports programs, and the majority of applicants from one sex may be people applying with those sports programs in mind (doesn't scale as well as other ideas, but hypothetically plausible).

Lastly, I think things would need to be analyzed differently just from the nature of how you define "equally qualified." If all 2,000 applicants are identical, that's one thing. If, however, "equal" is meant as a comparative match (if you made an order of merit list for the men and women, man #543, for example, would rank equally to woman #543, but neither would compare truly equally to any other # from the list) then I think the discriminatory aspect is harder to discount.

In essence selecting from a perfectly balanced pool of applicants _is_ a lottery. I argued in another post that a 70-30 split is so improbable under the assumptions, that is practically impossible.

So although theoretically possible, as was Hillary winning 16 coin tosses in a row (but... really?!?), a multiple sigma deviation from normal prompts, in every domain using statistics, an investigation to find the root cause.

Imagine that the applicants are admitted based on a test in which the name is hidden and replaced with an ID. After two reviewers graded each paper, and if scores don't differ more than 10% (which would prompt a re-review) IDs are tabulated from high to low and a line is drawn where full capacity is met. Then the full board is present when IDs are de-anonymized and the admission list is published. (This is the exact procedure in many countries.)

With equal number of qualified males and females, statistics predict gender equality in admission. A 2:1 disparity is a multiple sigma deviation which implies a systematic bias, which is not possible under the assumptions.

This the assumptions must be incorrect:
- either genders not equally qualified;
- or selection method not gender-blind (i.e. discriminatory).

Michael T, you are wrong, as shall be shown in my next post. And your analysis attests to the dangers of logic. There is, in fact, nothing wrong with actual logic. There is something wrong with the presumption that we are being logical, when, in fact, we make errors all the time.

So, please hang tight. (Or try to figure how you are wrong -- hint: Some of the other comments nail it). Next post will be in April.

I hope the answer is not "they made a mistake." Poincaré's baker (http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-legend-of-the-mathematician-and-the-baker-1542891198) tried that excuse unsuccessfully... Mistakes still happen randomly thus affect groups roughly the same way.

I guess a complete negation of assumptions in reductio ad absurdum might have included the exact meaning of discrimination - i.e. reader doesn't actually know what you meant by that - but that seems more of a trick question.

Trick questions would be unfair in this context. HOWEVER, for it to even be possibly NOT discrimination, I have to have left some important stuff out. Otherwise, if ALL other things were actually equal, it certainly would be discrimination.

But that is one of my main points -- gaps, by themselves, without lots of other information, are almost never clear evidence of discrimination. And a crucial subsidiary point is that those in the social sciences who highlight gaps as evidence for discrimination almost never provide that additional information.

That does not mean they are "wrong" -- it only means that their leap to discrimination is unjustified. It is leaping to a conclusion with insufficient evidence.

"Women’s Liberation is just a lot of foolishness. It’s the men who are discriminated against. They can’t bear children. And no one’s likely to do anything about that."

I read it as a youngster and its truth became only more apparent as I have grown older. Unlike race - which is relatively malleable (man and a woman of different races get together and boom! - some unique racial intermix is formed in one generation) - sex is binary and sex differences run much deeper. One can live in a racially homogeneous society - the majority of societies of the past (I grew up in such as a minority) were such - but one can't live in a sexually homogeneous society.

Unlike men - who are more split/more pointed/sharpened on both physiological and spiritual level and *certainly* can't play the fundamental role of women (bearing children) - women can be ambidextrous to different degree and switch between the feminine and masculine with relative ease.

Modern-day feminist crusaders seem to forget that women have this huge clear advantage in one area which is naturally balanced by inherent disadvantages at the top of all the areas they focus on and in which they complain about discrimination. Through-out times and continents there have been outliers - woman rulers for example - and they were all respected and revered by men.

I try to abstain from commenting on racial discrimination talk because being black in America doesn't seem to come with many distinct benefits compared to being white (it might have some advantages relative to being black in Afrika, but it's a separate discussion) but sex differences seem to be in some dynamic balance in every society.

Hello Lee
You have just replied to Michael T who posted after I posted.
I came up with 2 possible explanations for the apparent anomaly - posted March 15th at 5.35am your time.
Have you had a chance to read it yet?
Regards
Mike.

I would rather not give away the store prematurely. I confess to thoroughly enjoying this (perhaps it is part of why I was attracted to becoming a professor in the first place...). I love how people are really stepping up to attempt to answer my question at the end. Right or wrong, that is great stuff. I LOVE when people actually think, rather than give knee-jerk reactions. I do not want to tamp that down yet.

However, I did direct Michael T. to some of the other comments as on the right track (and you are just going to have to accept the ambiguity of the implications of that for your analysis till I put up the next post!).

Thought so.
I know, I know - it was my first point which sailed near the edge ... the bit about private colleges.
And I love it that (sorry, here comes a judgement) you challenge and think beyond the comfort zones, and have always been prepared to DARE to question.
Don't you find the noose tightening as you get older?

You sound some 60 years backward when you say Jews are discriminated against in admission to university.

Things have turned about. The mere fact they are counted as "whites" if a positive discrimination (see how many subcategories are in place for Asians. They have even the "Samoan" category.)

They are 2% of the whole population, and in a equalist time where there are heavy pushes to make student representation and demographic % near each other, you see where coherent fair non-discrimination would lead.
You also see how grouping them with whites harms whites a lot.

Of how deeply they care to tell themselves and everybody they are NOT WHITEs, I am certain you need not be told.

Back to the topic of academic admission... I am in favour of pure merit, and if this were the chosen policy, I'd have no problem with classes full of Asians and Jews along with whites.
My only problem is with hypocrisy, and double standars.

Demographic groups should ask to be classified, and be classified, in the same way with respect to every kind of law/statistis/context.

That's the way the USA rose high, I think. Choosing merit above all.

Non-Jewish whites and Asians are the two groups discriminated against.

And of the two discrimination, only the anti-Asian is a possible object of speech, sure enough.